I call BS
Options
Replies
-
If I know that I am about to partake in activity that my arms are not swinging,(pushing a shopping cart, spin class, elliptical) I will wrap my flex around my bra strap. I tend to get more accurate reading for not only steps but active minutes as well.0
-
Realized the that after out with my family walking around pike place for 5 hours and I only had 3000 steps that something was wrong.
I was holding my daughter's hand, so no arm swinging like a normal gait. Live and learn...
I also realize now pushing the shopping cart, etc....
Your arm doesn't need to be swinging for it to register steps. But holding something can throw it off at times.0 -
The Flex works with up and down motion, so take bigger steps you move up and down more and it will say you are more active. It also responds really well to the Tae Bo footwork
I use the Polar FT7 with heart rate monitor for my workouts, it happens the Fitbit Flex is a bit too generous with the calories burned. Hour of a good steady walk burns 300 kcal according to my Polar FT7 and 400 kcal according to Fitbit. I'm likely in better shape than Fitbit expects :P 0 -
The Flex works with up and down motion, so take bigger steps you move up and down more and it will say you are more active. It also responds really well to the Tae Bo footwork I use the Polar FT7 with heart rate monitor for my workouts, it happens the Fitbit Flex is a bit too generous with the calories burned. Hour of a good steady walk burns 300 kcal according to my Polar FT7 and 400 kcal according to Fitbit. I'm likely in better shape than Fitbit expects :P
You are likely in better shape than your FT7 knows actually.
Best walking and running burn estimates are per weight and pace - that's it. In studies, that's 4% of measured, much more accurate than HRM.
And if Fitbit got the distance pretty good, it's more accurate.
Your FT7 on the other end, being a cheaper Polar with no VO2max figure that is relating to your fitness level, has to calculate it somehow.
So it takes your BMI (height & weight) and decides if it's from good to bad (age & gender), and that dictates your VO2max.
In other words - bad BMI, bad fitness level. Good BMI, assumed good fitness level.
Both are bad assumptions, but generally can fit in majority of cases.
Fact is though, you can get in to cardio shaper much faster than you can lose weight. Actually moving higher weight forces it on you faster.
So you are indeed more fit - your lungs can now take in more air with less breathes and your heart can now beat less to pump the exact same amount of oxygen to your muscles required to burn the same calories, if weight stayed the same.
But the HRM doesn't realize you are that fit yet, so it assumes the lower HR it sees means an easier workout, so smaller calorie burn.
Actually, it's more though.
You can test your HRM to see how incorrect it is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is0 -
I just sweated my eyeballs out for an hour mowing my lawn (we have a cordless electric/very heavy push mower) and FitBit records only 15 minutes of activity?!? What the heck do you call the rest of that hour? Meditation? This is REALLY disappointing.
What kind of FitBit do you have and where do you wear it? One of my biggest disappointing aha moments when I first got my Flex was to realize that because I wore it on my wrist, when I was pushing my kids in a double stroller (which was my main form of exercise at the time), it didn't track the steps accurately because my arms weren't swinging. Same thing at the grocery store and mowing the lawn.
I now use the bigger band and put it around my ankle when I'm doing something which is step based but doesn't really move my arms.
Your arms do not have to swing in order to count steps. It is based on vibrations through the body (which is why it sometimes counts steps when you are driving). The stroller absorbed the vibrations which is why it didn't count them all. For the fun of it, I walked 500 steps with my arm not moving at all, and 500 swinging my arm. Both times the flex counted within 10 steps of the 500 I counted.
Mine counts the steps in my water aerobics class, but it doesn't recognize it as being very active because of the resistance of the water. I enter the class in MFP using the correct start time and the two sync up so I get very active minute credit without double dipping on the exercise calories earned.0 -
I read all the comments about the measurement etc, but I lay in bed this morning reading my Ipad and it measure 80 steps!! So, should I compensate a certain % everyday for inaccurate readings? If so, any suggestions? 10 %, 15% or more?0
-
I read all the comments about the measurement etc, but I lay in bed this morning reading my Ipad and it measure 80 steps!! So, should I compensate a certain % everyday for inaccurate readings? If so, any suggestions? 10 %, 15% or more?
You need to separate the fact that a "step", real or not, does not equal an exact calorie burn, which varies on the steps made.
It can tell impact for the steps, and that gives indication of how long was the stride compared to expected stride length and mass.
Stride and weight and time give calorie burn.
Unless you were banging the bed out of frustration for those 80 steps, your steps would have appeared as small movements, and hardly any extra calorie count, as if just taking steps while standing basically.
And guess what moving around in bed would have been burning? Actually closer to reality than standing with slight movements, which actually would have been underestimated.
Do this to find out how much of everything you got for that time laying in bed, you'll need start time and duration for when the 80 steps happened.
Record what the total steps, miles, and calories are right at that moment. If the day is done, even better, just the totals.
Log an activity of walking 1 mile for that start and duration time with 100 calories, note the steps given to that activity.
Now record the new totals.
Now do this for each stat.
Original - New + activity = Fitbit's estimate of activity time.
So if original data said 8080 steps.
Activity said 200 steps.
New data said 8200 steps.
8080 - 8200 + 200 = 80 steps Fitbit did for activity.
But what will be more telling is the calories and miles. I'd be curious what you discover.0 -
Just wanted to say thanks to this forum, I got a good step count when grocery shopping today. Since I wear a force and always holds onto the shopping cart and it would not register near as many steps as I was taking. I did a little more than a lap around walmart with my force in my pocket and was glad I got credit for doing that walking.0
-
I've been having issues with my Fitbit regarding VAM (Very Active Minutes) since last fall. I'll put in a good 45 minutes of pretty intense elliptical work, the Fitbit site shows all of it as VAM, then after it syncs with MFP -- BAM! Zero minutes.
Other than that, everything else seems pretty accurate. It was a little frustrating at first, but since *I* know how hard I've been working it really doesn't bother me much any more. I rarely eat back the Fitbit calorie adjustments anyway, and use it mostly for motivation at this point.0 -
Are you holding onto something with your wearing arm if it's a bracelet? It may not then, be logging the movement if it's not seeing an elevation change or that typical up-down movement associated with our arms moving when we walk naturally. Same may be true with an elliptical.0
-
You are likely in better shape than your FT7 knows actually.
Best walking and running burn estimates are per weight and pace - that's it. In studies, that's 4% of measured, much more accurate than HRM.
And if Fitbit got the distance pretty good, it's more accurate.
Your FT7 on the other end, being a cheaper Polar with no VO2max figure that is relating to your fitness level, has to calculate it somehow.
So it takes your BMI (height & weight) and decides if it's from good to bad (age & gender), and that dictates your VO2max.
In other words - bad BMI, bad fitness level. Good BMI, assumed good fitness level.
Both are bad assumptions, but generally can fit in majority of cases.
Fact is though, you can get in to cardio shaper much faster than you can lose weight. Actually moving higher weight forces it on you faster.
So you are indeed more fit - your lungs can now take in more air with less breathes and your heart can now beat less to pump the exact same amount of oxygen to your muscles required to burn the same calories, if weight stayed the same.
But the HRM doesn't realize you are that fit yet, so it assumes the lower HR it sees means an easier workout, so smaller calorie burn.
Actually, it's more though.
You can test your HRM to see how incorrect it is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
That's very interesting, I have lost weight, am noticing I'm getting stronger and have to push myself harder to get the same amount of burn, or well according to the HRM. I bought the Polar FT7 with HRM because I do a lot of Yoga and I just didn't believe the database that said 100 kcal for 20 minutes of Vinyasa Yoga, when I used the database my weight loss was up and down because I was basing my daily intake on the estimates. I think I'm better off concerning weight loss with an underestimate of burned calories, than an overestimate from the database, when it's not walking or running. I thought that if you get stronger you burn less calories because it's easier for your body. I'm losing between 0,5 kg to 1 kg a week.
I've become overweight in the past 7 years, struggling with medication and PTSS, but before that I used to have my own horse(s) and ride daily - dressage. I'm going to check out the calorie burn estimate. Thank you so much for your answer
0 -
Are you holding onto something with your wearing arm if it's a bracelet? It may not then, be logging the movement if it's not seeing an elevation change or that typical up-down movement associated with our arms moving when we walk naturally. Same may be true with an elliptical.
Nope. It's a Fitbit One that I've worn in the exact same place since I purchased it to replace my old Ultra (clipped to waistband or pants pocket). It seemed to record VAM just fine up until a few months ago, and it will still (occasionally) keep the VAM after the MFP sync. I think it's a translation/overwrite issue, but no one at either MFP or Fitbit seems to want to explain it.0 -
That's very interesting, I have lost weight, am noticing I'm getting stronger and have to push myself harder to get the same amount of burn, or well according to the HRM. I bought the Polar FT7 with HRM because I do a lot of Yoga and I just didn't believe the database that said 100 kcal for 20 minutes of Vinyasa Yoga, when I used the database my weight loss was up and down because I was basing my daily intake on the estimates. I think I'm better off concerning weight loss with an underestimate of burned calories, than an overestimate from the database, when it's not walking or running. I thought that if you get stronger you burn less calories because it's easier for your body. I'm losing between 0,5 kg to 1 kg a week.
I've become overweight in the past 7 years, struggling with medication and PTSS, but before that I used to have my own horse(s) and ride daily - dressage. I'm going to check out the calorie burn estimate. Thank you so much for your answer
The energy required (which means calories) to lift that 20 lb dumbbell off the floor free from gravity is the same whether male or female, lots or little muscle, young or old, ect.
Only if you hold it out in front as a lever does the equation change for arm length. Straight up, nope.
So if stronger it's easier, because the load is shared by many muscles, compared to someone without many.
But it's the same load, same energy expended.
With lots of muscle, it's not even work barely and fat as energy source is fine, heart rate barely rises.
If little muscle, it's a big workout, heart pounds to get oxygen to use some fat, but more carbs is used, heart rate really rises.
Same burn.
That's why HR as indicator of calorie burn is useless without having good estimates of VO2max and HRmax. And even then there are limitations for that connection and resulting formula. Must be steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min. Constantly changing HR and anaerobic (lifting and sprints) is wrong and inflated results to some degree.
So yes, you do have to push yourself harder to compensate for less weight.
As far as calories is concerned though, you don't have to make the HR match old out of shape you.
Now, for the heart itself to get a certain type of workout, yes, you do need to match HR. At which pace you'll be burning more than when you weighed more.
And at that effort body muscles will be getting a better workout. Cardio system improves faster than muscular system. It's why it's easier for people to get in shape faster and cause injury before muscles/tendons/ligaments are ready for the increased workload.
If HRM doesn't reflect that fact, it's way off for you.
Comparing past records if you have them is indeed interesting, especially if you tracked pace and distance, ect.0 -
I've been having issues with my Fitbit regarding VAM (Very Active Minutes) since last fall. I'll put in a good 45 minutes of pretty intense elliptical work, the Fitbit site shows all of it as VAM, then after it syncs with MFP -- BAM! Zero minutes.
Other than that, everything else seems pretty accurate. It was a little frustrating at first, but since *I* know how hard I've been working it really doesn't bother me much any more. I rarely eat back the Fitbit calorie adjustments anyway, and use it mostly for motivation at this point.
Fitbit merely syncs to MFP the daily burn, MFP is making adjustments to their daily burn estimate based on that.
Nothing regarding that goes back to Fitbit to change the workout VAM.
Or.
Are you manually making a workout in MFP?
Because that would indeed then sync over to Fitbit, replace what it had as calorie burn amounts, and that then decides if VAM or not.
For non-step based activity to get VAM, it must be 6 x resting calorie burn.
And if you logged in MFP, it syncs over to Fitbit as non-step based. So steps and miles are retained, but calories is replaced, and you may not be burning enough on the elliptical now to get VAM time.
The Fitbit calorie adjustment by the way isn't the exercise burn, it's the difference between what MFP thought you'd burn with no exercise based on your choice of work activity level.
The Fitbit adjustment is merely letting MFP use a much more accurate value for daily burn.
Then it takes off the 500 calories so you eat less.
Don't imagine you are doing yourself any favors long term by making the deficit bigger.
Why else would you be using a device that helps to be more accurate for daily burn, than to benefit from it? But then you don't.0 -
Are you holding onto something with your wearing arm if it's a bracelet? It may not then, be logging the movement if it's not seeing an elevation change or that typical up-down movement associated with our arms moving when we walk naturally. Same may be true with an elliptical.
Nope. It's a Fitbit One that I've worn in the exact same place since I purchased it to replace my old Ultra (clipped to waistband or pants pocket). It seemed to record VAM just fine up until a few months ago, and it will still (occasionally) keep the VAM after the MFP sync. I think it's a translation/overwrite issue, but no one at either MFP or Fitbit seems to want to explain it.
Did you lose weight a few months ago?
Then your daily BMR burn went down.
VAM is based on the exercise calorie burn being 6 x your resting or BMR calorie burn.
If you lost weight and BMR went down, but calorie burn is the same or less because you weigh less (which it should), then rightfully you are not doing VAM time anymore.
Gotta get your intensity up to counter lost weight.0 -
I've been having issues with my Fitbit regarding VAM (Very Active Minutes) since last fall. I'll put in a good 45 minutes of pretty intense elliptical work, the Fitbit site shows all of it as VAM, then after it syncs with MFP -- BAM! Zero minutes.
Other than that, everything else seems pretty accurate. It was a little frustrating at first, but since *I* know how hard I've been working it really doesn't bother me much any more. I rarely eat back the Fitbit calorie adjustments anyway, and use it mostly for motivation at this point.
It changed because you logged the activity on MFP. The "very active" (and moderately active, etc) minutes are based on the calorie burn per minute. For fitbit tracked activity--the calorie burn estimate is based on how much and how fast you move each minute as well as your stats. I notice on the elliptical my One credits it similar to walking or running at whatever speed I move (not sure whether that is accurate though). When you logged it, the fitbit estimated calorie burn is replaced by MFP's database. Since you lost those very active minutes, the average calorie burn per minute was lower than what fitbit had estimated. With the elliptical, I am not sure as the only option on MFP is a generic "elliptical trainer"--like any cardio machine people can exercise lightly, moderately or vigorously on the elliptical depending what they put into it. Hmmm.... Looking at the MFP estimate, it does credit a pretty high calorie burn, it credited me with 10 calories a minute which would count as "very active for me" (I need to burn 6 or more calories a minute). For logged activity, the calorie burn per minutes needs to be at least 6 times your resting calorie burn. I generally log my heart rate monitor calorie burn for the elliptical so wasn't sure how MFP credited it, but from what I saw it seems like it should be very active minutes unless you changed the calorie burn?0 -
The energy required (which means calories) to lift that 20 lb dumbbell off the floor free from gravity is the same whether male or female, lots or little muscle, young or old, ect.
Only if you hold it out in front as a lever does the equation change for arm length. Straight up, nope.
So if stronger it's easier, because the load is shared by many muscles, compared to someone without many.
But it's the same load, same energy expended.
With lots of muscle, it's not even work barely and fat as energy source is fine, heart rate barely rises.
If little muscle, it's a big workout, heart pounds to get oxygen to use some fat, but more carbs is used, heart rate really rises.
Same burn.
That's why HR as indicator of calorie burn is useless without having good estimates of VO2max and HRmax. And even then there are limitations for that connection and resulting formula. Must be steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min. Constantly changing HR and anaerobic (lifting and sprints) is wrong and inflated results to some degree.
So yes, you do have to push yourself harder to compensate for less weight.
As far as calories is concerned though, you don't have to make the HR match old out of shape you.
Now, for the heart itself to get a certain type of workout, yes, you do need to match HR. At which pace you'll be burning more than when you weighed more.
And at that effort body muscles will be getting a better workout. Cardio system improves faster than muscular system. It's why it's easier for people to get in shape faster and cause injury before muscles/tendons/ligaments are ready for the increased workload.
If HRM doesn't reflect that fact, it's way off for you.
Comparing past records if you have them is indeed interesting, especially if you tracked pace and distance, ect.
Learning more everyday so this accurate system of OwnCal is only accurate if you are as out of or in shape as they think you are? I'm actually trying to focus more on building muscle and flexibility to support my ligaments and joints and do low impact cardio, so I can increase cardio as my body gets stronger - I'm trying to prevent injury and I have learned about my limits in physical rehabilitation a year ago (no running or cycling with resistance because of the knees) - and how not to ignore my body. Pushing myself harder in my case is by example going fuller into my Yoga poses that require strength and/or flexibility because I can after building up to it, and not so much about increasing HR. I also do Kettlebell training twice a week, Tae Bo Cardio once a week. Yoga 7 times a week (of which 3 times higher intensity added). My Blackroll myofascial massage daily.
I looked up how to calculate the V02max online, and according to the calculation I'm in the "good" zone. I'm not sure how to adjust for that on the HRM measurements, doesn't help English is my second language will do another attempt re-reading the other topic tonight. 0 -
Good gravy, people -- I'm not an idiot (not that anyone came right out and called me one), but:
No, I have not lost weight -- I have been maintaining for over two years.
Yes, I use a HRM to overwrite intense exercise -- I have a Polar FT7 that I have been using with my Fitbit from Day 1.
Absolutely NOTHING has changed about my workouts or how I record them. Nothing.
There are days that I do the Same. Exact. Thing. But the results that show up on Fitbit's site are not consistent. I can understand the overwrite of the calorie burn for the time entered, but there is simply no reason for VAMs to just... disappear.
As I said before, I don't care that they disappear -- I *know* how intensely I'm working out -- but this can be a frustrating problem, and I'd hate to see a new user give up on it because no one can explain the inconsistency.0 -
Good gravy, people -- I'm not an idiot (not that anyone came right out and called me one), but:
No, I have not lost weight -- I have been maintaining for over two years.
Yes, I use a HRM to overwrite intense exercise -- I have a Polar FT7 that I have been using with my Fitbit from Day 1.
Absolutely NOTHING has changed about my workouts or how I record them. Nothing.
There are days that I do the Same. Exact. Thing. But the results that show up on Fitbit's site are not consistent. I can understand the overwrite of the calorie burn for the time entered, but there is simply no reason for VAMs to just... disappear.
As I said before, I don't care that they disappear -- I *know* how intensely I'm working out -- but this can be a frustrating problem, and I'd hate to see a new user give up on it because no one can explain the inconsistency.
Wow, that's harsh! Noone was implying you are an idiot, I am not sure where you get that. In your post you did not mention that you were logging your heart rate monitor calorie burn. I typically find that if I log my heart rate monitor burn even for some very vigorous activity (usually circuits or intervals--that was more a weakness of my HRM), I lose very active minutes. I always have, possibly because my heart rate tends to be lower and I have to work hard to get and keep it elevated. I only just learned from a Fitbit staff member that the standard was at least 6 times my resting calorie burn to see very active minutes. After learning that, I could see some of my workouts that were discredited after logging, the average calorie burn would be a little shy of that standard and adding an extra calorie burned per minute did result in very active minutes. I am not sure whether the standard for very active minutes has changed or not, or whether my fitness improved. It use to be a little easier to earn them (probably too easy though). As did logging the activity from the exercise database, which since the post I replied to didn't mention a HRM, I thought you logged from the MFP database--and saw MFP only offers on intensity option for the elliptical. If you think something is different on Fitbit's end, maybe try emailing customer service if you haven't already.0 -
Good gravy, people -- I'm not an idiot (not that anyone came right out and called me one), but:
No, I have not lost weight -- I have been maintaining for over two years.
Yes, I use a HRM to overwrite intense exercise -- I have a Polar FT7 that I have been using with my Fitbit from Day 1.
Absolutely NOTHING has changed about my workouts or how I record them. Nothing.
There are days that I do the Same. Exact. Thing. But the results that show up on Fitbit's site are not consistent. I can understand the overwrite of the calorie burn for the time entered, but there is simply no reason for VAMs to just... disappear.
As I said before, I don't care that they disappear -- I *know* how intensely I'm working out -- but this can be a frustrating problem, and I'd hate to see a new user give up on it because no one can explain the inconsistency.
Might reread those responses above, we covered several basis since you did not give enough facts up front to totally hone in on your issue directly. Sorry for trying to hit the possibilities that don't apply. Perhaps others that also read topics were educated though, hence the benefit of a forum educating others.
With no weight change, only age change, BMR and therefore resting calories has lowered - if calorie burn stayed the same for a workout per time, then actually the opposite effect would have happened - more VAM time.
So what you are saying is twofold.
First, Fitbit when it thinks the steps are walking/jogging (depending on impact) looks at calorie burn AND pace, and calorie burn can actually be less than 6 x resting as long as pace is fast enough, about 4 mph.
Second, when Fitbit receives a manual workout overwrite (which MFP sync or Fitbit manual workout create is), the pace is out the window even for walking/jogging activities, and you must meet 6 x resting calorie burn to earn VAM time.
Since nothing has changed, your VAM from first point always had the possibility of being wiped out by the second point.
But if VAM time even after the synced workouts wiped out Fitbit's estimates has now changed since last fall - please provide the following info from some past records.
What is current calorie burn you are logging and for how much time for elliptical?
Looking at some workouts prior to fall when you saw the change, what was the manually added calorie burn and time of workout when you did get VAM time?
And just so we are clear here to your comment of "there is simply no reason for VAMs to just ... disappear."
There are 2 very good reasons.
1st as mentioned above.
2nd they changed the limit, which they don't state in doc's anywhere precisely because they can change it. But it's very simple to figure out.0
